Haney has O'Meara. Leadbetter had Faldo. Harmon has Adam Scott.
Yoda has himself and Ted Fort.
This is my (Brian Manzella) Swinging Model:
Michael Finney.....known around here as Mikestloc.
Taken a couple of weeks ago, using a perfectly aligned box to show exact 90 degree camera angle, as well as up vs. down contact.
I have worked with PGA Tour Major winners (still do), and people like Nakia Davis, who's swing was so pretty, they put it in a video game.
But, the BEST LOOKING, MOST DYNAMIC, golf motion, maybe of all time is this one.
WHAT??? you may say?
Here is my arguement: Snead was as pretty, but not as dynamic. Hogan as dynamic, but not as pretty.
Els? He is 4 inches taller and outweighs Mike by 50lbs. Tiger is 2 inches taller, can bench 300, Mike can bench 160, maybe, and Mike has TWO TOTAL KNEE reconstructions and back (disc) surgery. He is only 37, but his pickup football and basketball days are behind him. Etc.
What I am saying is this, without all the size and strength of Vijay, or falling-over dramatics of Tiger, Mike would not lag behind their tee shots by much in a threesome, with even just a week of practice getting a bit sharper.
Technique, boys and girls.
He learned to play as a real little guy (as a 15 year old he was 5'2" 105 and could hit it 275). I have taught him since his late teens, along with much help from Ben Doyle.
Ben still RAVES about one of HIS all-time favorite moves and really, REALLY thinks Mike should have tried to play for a living (he may be one of the best players in the last 20 years who didn't play in ONE tour school of any kind).
The #9 ranked Junior in the US as a high-school senior, he was a member of one of golf's all-time best college teams---a team that Horton could have probably coached to a couple of National titles.
Future PGA tour players David Toms, Greg Lesher and Perry Moss, future European Tour player Fredrik Lindgren and our own Mikestoc. A real tough 1-5. Mike got disinterested under his second college coach and worked harder on his basketball [playing hard-fought pickup games against future NBAers like Shaq, Avery Johnson and Chris Jackson (Abdul-Rauf) and holding his own] then his golf his last couple of years at LSU.
He entered the golf business, has been a sought after teacher everywhere he has been, and is now a great head pro and only sometime golfer. He'd love to start playing a lot again (me too) and show off some of that great physical and mechanical skill.
In the meantime, this swing was taken in a year that he had not hit a large basket of balls or played 18 straight holes in maybe 6 months.
In a perfect world where he would play 18 a day and hit 200 balls and putt and chip for an hour, and play in even just all of his PGA Section events, there is no doubt he would be a very dangerous player.
There is a lot to learn in this swing, especially HOW he was taught to do some of the things LOTS of gofers would love to do.
I think we all understand there is no such thing as a consistent perfect, textbook swing but it's certainly something we all strive for. And even the best swings differ from one to the next for everyone.
That is one fine swing and I'm sure if you shot multiple samples, you would find one with a fairly still head. We all have things to work on and some more than others (speaking for myself).
Looking forward to the down the line shot. I think swingers can pick up a lot of good visual info from Mike's motion.
I know this isn't the Basic section, and you can shuffle me off, but I have a question.......
Everything about Michael's swing says Swing. Except for this one frame. In it he has stepped his weight up on top of the shaft (and with the right arm straightening) appears to be Driving the daylights out of it with PP#1.
Is this a normal Action for the advanced Swinger, a 4th barrel?
Or is this a perceptual illusion and I should up my meds?
Thanks in advance for any help.
and Thanks Brian for that swing vid.
How many pics of Tiger's head moving around a whole lot more than this, when he won the Grand Slam?
Brian,
It's a shame you're taking the low road through a comparison.
DG
Guys, it all boils down to this: you see poor players with poor looking swings (1), good players with good looking swings (2),
poor players with good looking swings (3), and good players with poor looking swings (4).
Most people fit into the first two catergories.
Some questions to ponder on: should you model a very good player with suboptimal mechanics? That's not even taking into account physical differences.
Learn the best bits and disregard the rest (why should you try and learn something that is lest than optimal?). So if you think "xyz" has perfect impact alignments, then copy it! But if you think there's an issue with a certain component, and it doesn't really fit into your game, then trash that part!
More food for thought:
How good a swing looks is based on personal opinion. There's no right or wrong. The mechanical superiority of a golf swing is not based on personal opinion, but on the laws and principles of geometry and physics.
Hybrid Mode
